and were attempted murder.

But, logic only goes so far, as at least one juror is an IQ that borders on single digits.

although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, etc.)

I just don't buy the self-defense argument in the first place. So don't ever put me on a jury in a trial of this nature.

Here's my issue: the self-defense strategy in this type of case requires that the victim or victims are the ones who, de facto, and in absentia, must "prove" (via the state) that they did not threaten the accused. We are NOT trying victims, but both this case and the Trayvon Martin case do precisely that. There is simply no due process for them here.

In a normal case of self-defense, one has to rely on evidence, not the state of mind of the accused. And there is absolutely no evidence that the accused was threatened. So if I were a juror on this case, self-defense would simply not enter into it.

When you fire a gun into a car (or crowd of people) you are, in my mind, intending to cause death. A gun, outside of target practice, has no other purpose than to kill. If he'd fired in the air as a warning and the bullet went astray, you might have an argument. But aiming a gun at people and firing several shots is, in my mind, an absolute case of intent to murder.

Someone may be believing his testimony, but in light of all the evidence especially what he did and did NOT do after he left the scene and went back to the hotel I'm scratching my head over how anyone could believe his testimony and when it is so contradictory in other evidence including his own words in letters and during his interrogation.

However, I'm not really inclined to believe at this point that anyone on the jury believes he did anything in self-defense - there is simply too much overwhelming evidence including physical evidence that he did not. It seems that people are of the belief that the self-defense jury questions mean that someone is believing that he was justified in self-defense and believes there was a gun. I don't at least at this point. After watching the video of the judge and attorneys discussing how to answer those self-defense questions they seemed to pertain to the surviving boys and because the instructions on that point were confusing...